The Best Alternative for Every Facebook Feature - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-alternatives <comment><USER4> Replacing functionality is the easy part. How do you replace volume of people using the system? Scandal or not - Facebook is still where "everyone is". And until "everyone" are not there, there is no "replacing" Facebook - <USER2> replacing some functional aspects of it. I use Facebook for one main purpose - to keep in touch with people around the world whom I know from different periods of my life. Unless all of them pack up and move to an alternative, leaving Facebook means leaving them.

<comment><USER5> > Replacing functionality is the easy part. How do you replace volume of > people using the system? Scandal or not - Facebook is still where "everyone > is".

I actually _do_ know people who strongly prefer their friends _not_ to have a Facebook account. So this is a feature and not a bug, since it is a strong opportunity to sort out to whom of the Facebook "friends" one really wants to stay in contact with.

Or to give another argument why this is a feature and not a bug: About everybody who has used Facebook for a long time also has collected "friends" that one would love to drop from the friends list, but has not done for politeness. This is finally an opportunity to get rid of them in a much more socially accepted way.

<comment><USER6> come on you're a tiny minority, most people's friends are on Facebook

<comment><USER5> > come on you're a tiny minority, most people's friends are on Facebook

My impression is that this strongly depends on the social circle the respective person is.

You first have to keep in mind that in Germany many people indeed use Facebook, but it is not not that deeply integrated into the life as it is my impression that it is the case in the US. Also in Germany it is often the case (at least in my impression) that people that come to some gathering explicitly say that don't desire that anybody puts some photors that were made of them on Facebebook.

In this case: if I were living in the USA, I probably were in a tiny minority. I am also probably a minority in Germany, too, but it is not my impression that this minority is tiny.

<comment><USER7> > that don't desire that anybody puts some photors that were made of them on > Facebebook.

Can confirm, coming from festivals I'm not allowed to upload some pictures to FB and have to send them via email to a bunch of different people who'd still like them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article seems to miss a few things.

I can do just fine without "news" from newsfeed. Their alternatives don't let me see pictures of, for example, my sister and brother's families. Random thoughts of people And so on. I'm sure my family would occasionally send me pictures, but it is hard to inconvenience everyone else. Not only that, but it would be more inconvenient for me. The main reason I joined facebook was because it was a simple way to keep in touch when moving overseas, after all. I can give updates and pictures without sending to so many people.

Groups are a weird thing. I find things like Reddit to be a different sort of feel.

Lastly: I think for a lot of people, alternatives need to be able to communicate with facebook and have be compatible in some ways. Right now, facebook is more akin to a phone company that only lets folks speak with others in the same network. If they would allow "friends" outside the network, allow public posts to be viewed by anyone, messenger coordinates with other messenger services, there would be more chance for folks to actually switch. In addition, more folks would switch to other services if there were an easy way for people to port some things to a new service: Profile information, pictures, and so on.

Marketplace misses the point as well. I occasionally sell artwork, for example. I don't advertise or self promote much, but do keep up an art page. The sales I get are generally from facebook. There are a few social networks dedicated to artwork, but it definitely isn't the same.

Someone else commented that facebook is great for finding events - I, too, use this.

Sometimes the biggest problem with replacing messenger is that others still use messenger. My experience from pre-facebook times is that no, most people don't change for you. They simply talk to you less. Not having messenger on my phone (desktop only) causes some issues here and there as it is.

<comment><USER9> > Right now, facebook is more akin to a _phone company_ that only lets folks > speak with others in the same network. If they would allow "friends" outside > the network, allow public posts to be viewed by anyone, messenger > coordinates with other messenger services, there would be more chance for > folks to actually switch. In addition, more folks would switch to other > services if there were an easy way for people to port some things to a new > service: Profile information, pictures, and so on.

I wonder if there is already legislation for this situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Somehow they managed to miss the point that it's the handing over of information to these services that is the thing giving them power.

Instead of Paperless post, how about Framadate? No love for Nextcloud? Diaspora? Mastodon?

<comment><USER11> You're right! They did miss the larger point about centralization.

With that said, is it perhaps possible that they're writing for a more general audience that isn't particularly interested in the overhead that comes with administration and decentralized platforms? People want one, simple, clear, drop-in replacement for a given use. They want it to be one that's as easy to use as possible and trivially easy to get their friends to use.

Most of all, people want to use something their friends are already using. Isolated, un-federated systems that require some level of technical skill (i.e., my late-90s grandma can't figure out in two minutes) to use are a hard sell.

<comment><USER10> Ok, start here:

* Nextcloud - [https://nextcloud.com/providers/](https://nextcloud.com/providers/)

* Diaspora - [https://bitnami.com/stack/diaspora](https://bitnami.com/stack/diaspora) (not that you need to host, see [https://diasporafoundation.org/#get_started](https://diasporafoundation.org/#get_started))

* Mastodon - [https://masto.host/](https://masto.host/) (again, like diaspora hosting isn't needed, see [http://joinmastodon.org/](http://joinmastodon.org/))

Of the above, only Nextcloud generally needs some sort of hosting (which is reasonable given what it does), but there are plenty of low overhead options. It's not expected that normal people host their own Diaspora or Mastodon instances, there are plenty of open instances for people to choose from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wish there was GNUbook or something that is run by a non-profit organization like Wikipedia that provides a service that serves as a social ID(think like a portable phone number), and then let people use whichever "messaging service" they like by bringing their ID with them. This way the messaging services become replaceable and users a avoid the network lock-in.

<comment><USER13> So [matrix] seems to fit the bill: federated network, bridges to other services (like IRC), encryption, you can write your own client or run your own server...

[Matrix]: [https://matrix.org/](https://matrix.org/)

<comment><USER14> Also hubzilla (nee red/matrix, unlrelated to matrix; descending from friendica which DID federate with Facebook and Twitter for a while, until FB & T closed off the federation API bridges)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wish there was one good messenger. Signal can't be it, because not federated, uses phone number. Riot can't be it because network effects. Google and facebook are abominable. WhatsApp and telegram are worse versions of signal. Who will save us from this efficient market competition?

(a previous version of this comment incorrectly claimed signal was closed- source)

<comment><USER16> >Signal can't be it, because closed-source,

Wrong, both clients and server are open-source.

>not federated,

This is intentional. See [https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is- moving/](https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/)

>uses phone number.

I think this is for the best. This means you can seamlessly add contacts you already have on your phonebook to Signal. No need for emails or separate user accounts. If you're worried about this, you can buy a prepaid SIM card for pennies, or use an online service. It's not an issue.

<comment><USER17> The matter of federation is by no means settled. Many experts do not agree with Signal's conclusions and suspect ulterior motives, myself included. It is open source, though, but Moxie has definitely made decisions that are harmful to open source. Again, ulterior motives may be at play.

<comment><USER18> I feel that it's unlikely that ulterior motives are in place, given that Signal's core user base consists of privacy conscious folks, thereby preventing an easy pivot towards a closed ecosystem once critical mass is reached. It's likely that if this were attempted, someone would just fork Signal, with support for some kind of decentralization, and split the user base in two.

However moxie seems to have an outdated form of federation in mind when he gives examples of IRC and email. While it is true that these technologies have been quite rigid, there are other examples of distributed technologies that are quite flexible in implementation. Bitcoin and Mastodon are examples where changes and updates are pushed through regularly.

The determining factor seems to be the amount of control the principal developer holds over the ecosystem. Mastodon instances basically all run the same code, and (mostly) everyone is happy with the direction they are going. Thus, Eugen pushes a new release, everyone runs it, and protocol changes can propagate throughout the network. Old nodes get left behind. However, say Eugen (or Signal) massively screws up, and they get forked. Now, any protocol changes must be adopted by both camps (who by definition have differing philosophies) to be fully applied.

<comment><USER17> It's already a closed ecosystem. The software is open, not the ecosystem. Moxie toes the line so that Signal's strengths always outweigh its faults for most people, which prevents an alternative from reaching a critical mass. By not federating he locks users into his ecosystem - a fringe group of upset users can't draw the rest of the users out if they have an incompatible platform. I think he's a smart guy who knows exactly what he's doing, but he puts on a nice face for PR because he can't exactly come out and admit his design choices are self-serving.

Also, Mastodon is built on open standards that have several competing and compatible implementations (GNUSocial and Pleorma are the main two), which are run by their own maintainers.

<comment><USER18> _Moxie toes the line so that Signal 's strengths always outweigh its faults for most people, which prevents an alternative from reaching a critical mass._

Signal is released under the GPL, meaning that if something did happen to shake user faith (data breach, data mining) a fork pointing at different servers could be instantly created with complete feature parity.

Every traditional barrier to user migration is removed. Features are the same. UX is the same. Compatibility is the same.

That's a precarious line to toe.

 _Also, Mastodon is built on open standards that have several competing and compatible implementations (GNUSocial and Pleorma are the main two), which are run by their own maintainers._

Yes, Mastodon is inter-operable with OStatus and ActivityPub. However I do not know of any significant user base that interacts with Mastodon through an alternative platform. Given the will, Mastodon could implement its own extensions to ActivityPub and break compatibility, with most users unaffected due to the strength behind the core development team.

<comment><USER17> >a fork pointing at different servers could be instantly created with complete feature parity.

But _not_ federation. No one can talk to people on other servers. Such forks already exist, none of them are successful.

>Yes, Mastodon is inter-operable with OStatus and ActivityPub. However I do not know of any significant user base that interacts with Mastodon through an alternative platform.

I know of many people on both of the platforms I mentioned. Collaboration between all of these platforms is frequent and they drive improvements in each other.

<comment><USER18> >But not federation. No one can talk to people on other servers. Such forks already exist, none of them are successful.

They are not successful because Signal has not yet done anything particularly egregious. If they do, I believe that a fork would quickly gain popularity.

>I know of many people on both of the platforms I mentioned. Collaboration between all of these platforms is frequent and they drive improvements in each other.

We've both given anecdotes; user counts would be more conclusive. I've found +1 million [0] for Mastodon. Do you know how many users GNU Social and Pleroma have? I can't find these numbers from a quick Google search, but they might be somewhere.

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)#Adoption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_\(software\)#Adoption)]

<comment><USER17> >They are not successful because Signal has not yet done anything particularly egregious

Like I said: Moxie toes the line. He doesn't cross it. Well, everyone has a different line. He's crossed mine but not the lines the average user sets.

>We've both given anecdotes; user counts would be more conclusive. I've found +1 million [0] for Mastodon.

I question the methodology behind this figure. The nature of the decentralized network makes it difficult to get good estimates. All I have are anecdotes. Yes, the overwhelming majority of users are on Mastodon. However, I personally interact with several users on several different Pleroma instances and a couple on GNUSocial instances, and I did not seek them out for this purpose.

<comment><USER18> >I question the methodology behind this figure. The nature of the decentralized network makes it difficult to get good estimates. All I have are anecdotes. Yes, the overwhelming majority of users are on Mastodon. However, I personally interact with several users on several different Pleroma instances and a couple on GNUSocial instances, and I did not seek them out for this purpose.

However they are the exception. Because the overwhelming majority of users are on Mastodon, the Mastodon developers have the power to modify protocol implementations. If it was closer to an even split, any breaking changes would fracture the community, while in this case some smaller groups may be lost.

<comment><USER17> Come on. You can say the same thing about Chrome's effect on web standards. In reality that's not how it works, and the situation is far better than Signal.

<comment><USER18> Gmail is using their influence to modify email standards[0]. This is exactly how it works in reality. If a certain service provider holds most of the user base, they can implement breaking changes without fracturing the community. In some cases it's a net positive, helping protocols evolve, and in some cases it's a net negative.

[0][https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/13/17007100/google-amp- gmail...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/13/17007100/google-amp-gmail-email- widgets-features)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Secure scuttlebutt (SSB) anyone?

The core of all of these recommendations is that you need an _identity_ online. It almost seems like if you solve the identity problem (like how various blockchains deal with it with addresses and wallets) you can get all the rest as easy follow ons.

Mastodon still ties identity with a machine online much like email. Even SSB ties identity to your machine. Even what Sir T.B.L. is proposing - a "data pod" per person - seems to tie identity with a machine online.

Are there no other solutions to this?

<comment><USER20> Isn't that what keybase.io is for? Associating a single ID and trust graph across multiple accounts, devices and keys?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> They missed the point with the Events alternatives.

The problem isn't creating/inviting; you can do that with email. Facebook is great at _finding_ events, and there aren't any competitors that have anything close to their reach.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why nobody mentions the social connection functionality? To stay connected with my extended family, to be able to see their wedding pics and share my kids pics, there is no alternative to Facebook. I can not ask my elderly mom to start using something else on her precious ipad.

</comment><comment><USER23> Another part of the puzzle is to return to blogging, for those totally public posts.

<comment><USER24> And RSS feeds. I have a list of people who's opinion I trust after 10+ years of reading everything they write. I value their opinion on politics and economics rather than my aunt or some co-worker from two jobs ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Remember that handful of friends who weren't on FB and so you hassled us to join for a while and then kind of lost touch? Many of us still have the same phone numbers.

</comment><comment><USER26> Seems like a key missing piece is the "staying in touch with people" part. That's by far the biggest feature for me, once I've added someone on facebook, I know I can message/call them forever. No lost phone numbers/email addresses.

If there was a network that automatically updated my contact for a person when they changed their phone number, I'd no longer have an excuse to stay on facebook at all.

<comment><USER27> I think LinkedIn does almost that - add a contact and have the contact information they maintain updated as they like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> All this rage around Facebook makes me wonder if it would be a good time to start an open source social media.

It seems to me that Facebook is the new Microsoft and we need a "GNU/Linux" to oppose it.

The best would be a decentralized system for sure, but it is hard to be as good as Facebook/other social network with full decentralization.

Food for thoughts...

<comment><USER29> Facebook (and most social media) have a fatal flaw - they have not built products that people are willing to pay for. So they grow to the point where they need resources to keep running, and have to monetize in unfriendly ways. Open source or not, to successfully scale, there must be a funding model that isn't evil. Whether that is fees, donations, or something else... it has to be there.

I do agree that now is a good time to start something. I've got my design put together to stay simple, lean, and keeps costs down while still handling the basic needs people go to social media for. I'm sure most of us could whip out their own flavors of that. And many of us could code it, too. Which is the reason that I am hesitant to start building -- too many competing projects will steal each other's thunder.

<comment><USER30> This "fatal flaw" works strongly in their favor.

Good luck building a version of Facebook that billions of people would pay for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The most insidious aspect of FB is their inference engine capability - <USER3> they can inherently track aspect of the activity of non FB users based on their relationships proximity and activity with those who do have FB accounts.

Even if you choose to actively do no fb - they can still track you to a certain degree.

<comment><USER14> Most of that inference actually comes from the pervasive "like" buttons -- essentially all of the websites you use are happily and freely giving the information about you to facebook - who gladly correlate it across sites and with your shadow profiles.

Your friends who uploaded their addressbooks and phonebooks to Facebook and WhatsApp are obviously helping to associate that data with a real identity, and by tagging you in pictures make it even more complete.

But the vast majority of info Facebook has on you that YOU did not provide directly actually comes from the embedded Facebook bugs ("like buttons") all over the internet. And it's not surprising that the media doesn't mention it -- they rely on those bugs to get traffic, so they can't complain about it without taking it off, and they can't take it off without losing traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I've created a simple app for myself that lets me keep track of all my conversations, and it encourages me to keep in touch with all my friends, family, (ex)colleagues.

If you like friendly contact reminders or like to recall what you talked about with friends whom you don't meet every so often, give it a try. You can create your own timeline with conversations, photos, and other important things. As well as general background information. It can send you reminders to talk, and birthday reminders.

The data is in your control, stays on your phone, is not synced. An internet connection is not required.

Currently only for iOS: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/social-contact- journal/id118...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/social-contact- journal/id1186696582?ls=1&mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER33> > You can sync the app to other social networks you might use, like Twitter > and LinkedIn

LinkedIn is in my experience is as bad as FB. I really can't take anyone seriously that is recommending syncing with it. It uploaded my friends contacts which I did not want.

<comment><USER34> I had a bunch of legacy contacts inside my hotmail account that I hadn't touched in years. Shortly after MS took over LinkedIn, it started bugging me to add them all to my LinkedIn network, by listing them all on a special LinkedIn page and automatically ticking the checkbox on each one. Took ages for the penny to drop, as to _where_ these contacts were coming from!

Needless to say, my hotmail/outlook.com account now no longer has ANY contacts in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Maybe we'd all have been better off on Google Plus.

I avoid giving Google information about myself that it doesn't need, but I do trust them more than I trust Facebook. Although maybe that's naive of me.

<comment><USER36> > Maybe we'd all have been better off on Google Plus.

Haha, probably not. G+ enforced a "real names" policy, then tried to merge accounts across search, YouTube, etc. It's the same Panopticon, though slightly less amoral.

If we want to solve this, we need to make it easier for non-tech people to decentralize their data. Distributed communication was solved long ago: email (private 1-1), mailing lists (private many-many), weblogs (public 1-many), Usenet (public many-many). All of this can be self-hosted, or hosted on a shared server for a few $/mo, i.e. less than 10% of your phone bill.

Since that will never happen, the least-bad way to do this is to silo your online activity among separate entities and identities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The younger generation is more IM focused than social network app focused. InstaGram / SnapChat / etc are going to do to Facebook what Reddit did to Digg.

<comment><USER38> Maybe AIM will decide to come back online with new branding

<comment><USER39> we want MSN! (bat_emoji)

<comment><USER40> Haha, how about XMPP, using Gajim? Good times!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > Scandal or not - Facebook is still where "everyone is". What about Elgg? > [https://elgg.org/](https://elgg.org/) Good point for starting your own > 'Facebook'

</comment><comment><USER40> Seems like a suitable alternative: [https://www.minds.com](https://www.minds.com)

Source code: [https://github.com/Minds](https://github.com/Minds)

</comment><comment><USER42> tldr;

      News Feed          -> Nuzzel, Digg, Apple News
      Messenger          -> Signal
      Events             -> Paperless Post, Doodle
      Birthday Reminders -> Google Calendar, etc...
      Marketplace        -> Nextdoor
      Groups             -> GroupMe
      3rd Party Logins   -> 1Password, LastPass

<comment><USER43> That was pretty much the list before Facebook (or the popular version of it, anyway) existed too.

It's not that people use Facebook because it's better than those tools, or worse than those tools, or even because it's an aggregate of those tools.

They use it because all their friends/family/colleagues are there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> What about photo sharing and commenting?

<comment><USER45> Right? They leave out the feature Facebook was created for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> www.famipix.com Online since 2005. 700k users. No ads. Free for schools and for private use up to 1000 photos.

</comment><comment><USER47> second best.

</comment><comment><USER48> I feel like now — after the recent furore — is a great time to be on Facebook. They know they're under the microscope for privacy issues, and have the time and treasure to find real solutions. Also, naive as it might be, I think Zuck genuinely cares and wants to fix what he's broken. I am less inclined to trust any other service to get both security and intentions right.

<comment><USER49> You got fooled much more often than twice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The media pile on against facebook is reaching absurd proportions. And it's getting harder to distinguish between news and advocacy or journalism and propaganda.

When a journalist is leading a #deletefacebook movement and when news is pushing alternative products over facebook does it cross a line from news/journalism/reporting to advocacy/advertisement/pay for play/etc?

I hope one day we get to the bottom of what this is really about. Because it isn't about privacy or data protection. And the scale and scope of the facebook campaign is rather unsettling also. Maybe real journalists are out there and hopefully we can get some answers.</comment>


Tor project decides to fork Firefox - <AUTHOR> http://blog.torproject.org/blog/toggle-or-not-toggle-end-torbutton

<comment><USER2> Seems like a good idea. I agree with the article: TorButton is convenient, but it's confusing and it can easily leak information about you. Two browsers (one private, one public) is much easier to reason about. And, being able to iterate quickly and not saddle "normal" Firefox users with the mistakes is an added benefit.

<comment><USER3> There is a downside: Your can already download a standalone Tor-Browser bundled with (FF portable), but it still is FF 3.6.17. After a fork, the Tor project will not invest all their resources in keeping up with an enhanced FF release schedule. They will likely always be behind a few month.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure this is that big an issue, I think being a month or two behind FF releases won't be the end of the world.

<comment><USER5> As long as they don't get far behind on security fixes, particularly those that could lead to information leaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this is an excellent decision -- the "toggle" design seemed seriously unsafe. Consider the list of TorButton bugs that have already been fixed: [https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?group=priorit...](https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?group=priority&component=Torbutton&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=component&col=type&col=status&col=priority&col=milestone&col=points&report=14&type=defect) How much would you bet that there isn't at least one more anonymity- compromising bug in there?

The new design seems much less Rube-Goldbergy. That said, I still think this style of interface offers only quite casual protection, since it relies on (the forked version of) Firefox not having any bugs that leak information. So any adversary who has enough resources to obtain a zero-day Firefox exploit that allows arbitrary code execution is able to completely deanonymize you. This is probably good enough for e.g. the masses in Iran, but not for would-be Wikileakers.

What I really would like to see is a virtual machine setup that lets you run your webbrowers in a VM, and provides the guest OS with a simulated network interface which actually connects through Tor. That would make for a much smaller attack surface. But last time I looked, I couldn't find one.

</comment><comment><USER7> Firefox is millions of lines of C++ and has had more than one fix-it-NOW security issue. I see the problems with the Torbutton model, but a one-man fork is not necessarily a good idea either.

Still, I hope it works.

</comment><comment><USER8> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XeroBank_Browser>

Xerobank has done the same thing. Firefox has a lot of options that need tweaking if you don't want to leak information. These guys also run a private "Tor" network.

</comment><comment><USER9> So changes get pushed immediately in their own fork but are they again pushed upstream for the general Firefox release? I would presume that many of the changes that they would like to make to the project, while not high enough priority for the Mozilla team, would actually be beneficial to them.

<comment><USER10> _The Tor Browser bugs on the other hand are more directly usable by Firefox in its own Private Browsing Mode, which makes them more likely to merge quicker, and be maintained long-term. Also, because we are releasing our own Firefox- based browser, we will also have more control over experimenting with them and deploying these fixes to our users rapidly, as opposed to waiting for the next major Firefox release._

This is from the article. Although these features may be beneficial for Firefox, they may not be a part of their priorities. By Tor making their own fork and doing all the hard work (designing, coding and testing), they can just give Mozilla some patches. This only leaves a bit of their own testing, maybe some marge conflicts, so that the Firefox devs don't need to do the design and initial coding. This means that both guys win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a silly title. The focus here is dropping of the browser extension and moving resources to a customized version of Firefox.

<comment><USER12> This is dabbling on the notion of what a "fork" means but to my eyes (and those of most, apparently) they're talking about creating a separate, customized version of Firefox. Which is a fork of Firefox. Which makes the title adequate, Asa, no?

<comment><USER13> It struck me as technically true, but misleading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> i'm confused. is this also the end of vidalia? how will i use tor w chrome?

<comment><USER15> Do you understand what Tor Button does versus what Vidalia does? They're two completely different things.

<comment><USER14> no, i don't (as i said, i use chrome). maybe that is why i am confused? the reason i ask is that they seem to be focussing on a "browser bundle" which is firefox based. see <https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en>

[edit: thanks Larry for response below. i currently use a separate invocation of chrome that starts in incognito with proxy configured, and then start tor with vidalia. but i will consider switching to a ff-based bundle. replied here as didn't have a "reply" link for some reason - seems to be a limit on posting rate?]

[ps ironic that one of your most recent posts, driveby, was on how amazing it is to be supportive of people that don't understand things...]

<comment><USER16> Vidalia is a GUI for tor, letting you start it, stop it, change identity, monitor your connections, etc. Torbutton toggles if firefox goes via tor or not and monitors to make sure it still does and nothing has changed and changes some settings to make attempt to prevent accidental leaks. Current broswer bundles is usually pretty much a browser with torbutton, vidalia and tor. Tor itself will no doubt still be able to proxy other things (such as pidgin or other non-web traffic). I'm not sure what exactly forking the browser would entail, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly meant to provide a full separate (and neutral looking to the server) browser rather then have people flip back and forth which has always been a bad idea since it's very easy to accidentally have it give you away. If the bundle itself includes Tor or not is hard to say. If chrome + tor (started with vidalia rather then command line, if you wish) is secure is debatable, perhaps or perhaps not - it's never been a project they've really focused on. Third party or roll-your-own setups are as secure as you make them.

[EDIT] You're welcome. Chrome via proxy in incognito on a separate install is probably pretty safe. Might even be safer - I'm not really qualified to answer either way. The bundles are only as safe as the writers as well, so.. dunno.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Facebook Has Entrusted Its Future to the CEO of PayPal - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/11/on-david-marcus-and-facebook/

<comment><USER2> It will be interesting if PayPal holds FB hostage the way FB holds others.

Swings and roundabouts....</comment>


The rise of the app entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8577334.stm <comment><USER2> I wrote about this. I think that building a business on these app stores is a losing proposition. I'm not saying that you shouldn't develop apps, but don't build a business on these stores. [http://techneur.com/post/440686528/its-all- our-fault-why-bui...](http://techneur.com/post/440686528/its-all-our-fault- why-building-a-business-on-the)

<comment><USER3> You seem to have made a rather large inferential jump - one from trusting the Apple store, to trusting any store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There may be a bubble in that lots of money may get wasted on ideas that will seem foolish in retrospect. However, iPhone/smart phones have as much potential as the web.

One, iPhone is white-label hardware that will get more and more powerful. I believe that property of the iPhone is nowhere close to being fully explored, and we'll see more and more apps that replace other electronic devices, or make a whole new kind of device out of the iPhone.

Two, iPhone (and the iPad) is also a new medium. Even the web on the iPhone is not quite the same as the web on a computer.

Those two mean there's plenty of opportunity for disruptive innovation in this space for years to come.

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought this was going to be about web-app entrepreneurs. And by the way, can anyone think of a less sleazy word for tech start-up people than "entrepreneur"?

<comment><USER6> Since when is "entrepreneur" a sleazy word?

<comment><USER5> OK, the community has spoken "entrepreneur" is apparently cool

<comment><USER7> Not necessarily cool but not sleazy. My dictionary defines sleazy as "sordid, corrupt, or immoral." I didn't realize that word had such a negative definition; perhaps you didn't either.

I think when people look down on entrepreneurs it is usually because they see it as a foolish, fruitless, activity. While I don't agree with those people, it is difficult to deny that being an entrepreneur is riskier than working a day job. So, with that in mind, perhaps "dicey" would be more palatable to this community.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fanduel Founders and Employees get $0 - <AUTHOR> https://www.legalsportsreport.com/21742/fanduel-founders-common-shareholders-get-nothing-in-ppb-deal/ <comment><USER2> I'm shocked, shocked (!) that the founders and employees made nothing while the C-suite made bank.

</comment><comment><USER3> discussion on later submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17485246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17485246)</comment>


The Wall Street Journal's Fake and Distorted News - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wall-street-journals-fake-distorted-news-ray-dalio/ <comment><USER2> During my career in IT the New York Times did a handful of articles involving either the small company I worked for or on some subject area I was heavily involved in. Each time I was amazed at the level of inaccuracies and misunderstandings the in the articles. Given that this happened in a small sample, it could be that these were unusual cases, but I highly doubt it. I have a feeling that this is all too common. Since then I look at mainstream media reporting with lots of skepticism.

<comment><USER3> I worked on a project that was the subject of media interest that management wanted to keep under wraps. We would occasionally read bad news about the project in the NYT or the WSJ, management would deny the news, and then future developments would confirm that the reporting was correct (other than some inconsequential details that management would harp on).

These folks might not know much about 3D printing or blockchain or whatnot, but they are experts at sourcing, verifying, and reporting information. Dismiss them at your peril.

<comment><USER4> Hmm, if they were truly experts at that then there'd be far fewer mistakes that people notice. And they'd have widely discussed, mature, sophisticated systems for catching errors, sort of like how the software industry invests so much into type systems and other quality techniques.

I think it's more likely you just remember that incident because it was so directly relevant to your life, so it gets magnified. I can add my voice to the chorus of people who have noticed a vast gulf between what gets reported and reality, especially when op-eds get involved.

This doesn't happen all the time. I've been involved in some stories which were pretty accurately reported. But it's completely dependent on (a) the skill of the individual journalist and much more importantly (b) if the story is relevant to something the journalist cares about. It's relatively easy for journalists to cover 3D printing or blockchain "reliably" (by the standards of the press) because they don't actually care about these topics. When the issue you know about starts to intersect social worldviews or power games within the political/journalistic sphere itself, things get crazy really fast.

And there's no consistency between journalists. The entire press industry is set up to consider journalism to be the act of a heroic and noble individual rather than the outcome of a process, a system. The "Jim Lehrer's Rules of Journalism" story that was discussed here recently is a good example of that. It wasn't actually a set of rules in the sense an engineer would understand it (i.e. something checked and enforced), it was a personal honour code. Journalism will never be able to increase its reliability whilst it treats the output as the product primarily of a writer + editor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "As for The Wall Street Journal's claim that I'm refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I'd tell you it was true."

He claims their piece is full of factual errors but never addressed a single one in his LinkedIn post, and never provided any kind of evidence or arguments to support any of his other hyperbolic claims of systemic problems in journalism of the WSJ. Then he does something that is common in people who are actively dishonest: the old "Trust me, I'd tell you the truth." statement. Generally people who are honest are eager to present logical arguments backed by facts that can be verified. They don't need to ask for trust because trust isn't required to form independent conclusions based on evidence.

His LinkedIn post, after I read it, makes me believe the WSJ article more, not less.

<comment><USER6> One good piece of advice from Abercrombie is that only liars say "trust me". That would never occur to anyone who's really being honest.

<comment><USER4> Ironicallly, it's actually iamleppert's post that seems to be misrepresenting things.

Firstly, the Dalio doesn't say "trust me" anywhere. The word trust doesn't appear in it at all, and the closest it gets semantically is the closing paragraph where he says:

 _You are now faced with a choice. You can believe my account of what's happening or The Wall Street Journal's. What you do is up to you._

The story he's taking argument with is about inter-personal relationships and subjective claims so it's hard to prove anything about it objectively. But nonetheless, he actually has _" provided any kind of evidence or arguments to support any of his other hyperbolic claims of systemic problems in journalism of the WSJ"_.

Specifically this: Dalio states that one of the journalists applied for a job at his company and was rejected, the WSJ knew that, and kept him on the story anyway. That would create a problematic conflict of interest (plus it seems Bridgewater and this specific journalist have a long running fight of some sort). The claim is uncheckable directly but the journalist has replied to Dalio's post with nothing more than a link to his article and "Happy Sunday". If such a very specific and problematic accusation were false, presumably he'd dispute that.

To me that's sufficient to support his claim of bad journalism at the WSJ. It's not a claim hyperbolic if they're assigning failed job candidates to cover a company.

He also disputes the other claims but both the WSJ and his position seem very subjective, it's all about to what extent he really controls the firm and whether there have been internal fights or not. I don't see any way to judge who's right there. You'd have to believe in the WSJ's process for finding the truth to take a side here, but as they rely entirely on anonymous sources and already failed step 1 "no conflicts of interest", I don't see why we should automatically assume the WSJ story is true here.

<comment><USER5> You're right in that he didn't say "Trust me" but he did say a trust-seeking analogous of:

"I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I'd tell you it was true."

The definition of assure is: "tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have."

Note the definition of trust: "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something."

"I can assure you" presented without any assurances or facts otherwise in this context is simply another form of "Trust me".

In any event, without mincing words, the WSJ article presenting some very concrete evidence that his business is both a mess internally and by the numbers isn't delivering compared to a simple index fund. Why didn't he address this in his post if it was untrue? The WSJ even presented a graph with data to back up their claims on rate of returns. I verified the last years numbers (admittedly with a quick Google search, but two other sources seem to have similar conclusions).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> FYI: Here is the WSJ's "Fake and Distorted News" [https://www.wsj.com/articles/ray-dalio-is-still-driving- his-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ray-dalio-is-still-driving- his-160-billion-hedge-fund-machine-11580504150)

<comment><USER7> without the paywall: [http://archive.is/8QSfQ](http://archive.is/8QSfQ)

<comment><USER8> Google captcha-walled

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of comments here suggest that journalists and newspapers are only out to make what sells. That rings false to me in absolute terms. If you read Liars Poker by Michael Lewis you know he was employed at a brokerage and could have stuck around if he was only looking out for money. Does no one else here believe there are journalists who have forsaken the path of making big bucks in other fields to do the right thing?

It feels like there is a broad brush painting over this entire discussion. I can't say Ray Dalio makes a convincing case for himself here.

<comment><USER10> From /U/gwbrooks commenting above you:

> Former newspaper editor and publisher here. The quickest way to lose your > faith in the media is to have them cover something you actually know about.

Personal experience of mine was in my much younger days (early 90's and the Tory govt was pushing the 'criminal justice bill) when a rave in a field I was at was raided by 200+ police in full riot gear. They launched an unprovoked attack, beating the shit out of those they got their battons on.

The BBC had Cameras there and on the news that night edited to look like the kids were attacking the police. Never forgotten that, or how the BBC propagandised for the govt.

There have been numerous other examples in my tech & finance careers since then. When I see news, my first thought is what is the agenda of the the author (s) and am never surprised when the real.agenda appears later on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > You are now faced with a choice. You can believe my account of what's > happening or The Wall Street Journal's.

Having now read both accounts, I think I'm going to have to go with the WSJ here.

</comment><comment><USER12> > The Wall Street Journal and other publications don't have investigative > journalists write complementary articles on people because those articles > don't sell, which is why our country has no heroes

This happens all the time. They're called fluff PR pieces. Basically the opposite of what Dalio describes in the rest of his post, but they absolutely exist.

</comment><comment><USER13> Bridgewater is famous for valuing a culture of almost brutal honesty and fierce internecine warring over ideas. It argues this combination is vital to reaching the deep understanding that is critical to the success of its investments. While Bridgewater has experimented with leadership transitions multiple times, changing directions and reversing course seems consistent and faithful to its internal DNA. Life doesn't always go in neat straight lines. Forcing a simple story line isn't always best.

</comment><comment><USER14> _> As for The Wall Street Journal's claim that I'm refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I'd tell you it was true._

So your counter-argument to an article in a publication that has won 37 Pulitzer prizes for the quality of its news reporting is: "they're wrong, trust me."

<comment><USER15> He's the subject of the article? If he himself has no right of reply, then who does?

<comment><USER16> I guess the point is that his reply simply is not convincing at all, because it amounts to asking for blind trust in the absence of proof.

<comment><USER15> What is the threshold for "convincing" though? If I write an article about you alleging or directly concluding something unpleasant, ask you for comment, include your denials, but publish anyway slanting the entire article to my narrative, and you publish your own take on the matter, are you automatically not convincing? _" But the people have a right to know, that rumanator did XYZ!!"._

This is the entire problem -- there is nothing that will apparently get a media org to retract or back down, because for them, publishing something, anything means revenue and not publishing means going out of business, facts be damned.

Media: "Hey, we're writing an article about this concerning you -- any comment?"

Subject: "It's completely untrue."

Media: "Ooh, you must be hiding something, we're publishing anyway."

Subject: <Publishes online rebuttal>

Online commentariat: "He's not convincing!! The media is under attack and our democracy is dying in the darkness!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like Ray Dalio. I'm a big fan of his book, Principles and his favorite book recommendation, Lessons of History by the Durants.

However, his LinkedIn post is irresponsible and appears more to do with discrediting journalism than sticking to and stating the facts. It's becoming more than apparent that some members of the 1% are increasingly threatened about the role that unfettered journalism and left-leaning politics has in critiquing their unchecked power in this time of historically significant inequality.

<comment><USER15> I don't understand your point. I like the WSJ myself, and have been a subscriber for 15 years. However, the article is clearly biased, in that they give token space near the beginning to the responses of the _actual subjects in the article_ , and then spend the balance 80% of the article continuing their narrative, regardless of what the subjects themselves said!

Ray Dalio is right. Journalism is not about informing or educating, it is about entertaining, and depending on your media source of choice, you are being pandered to.

This is not about "discrediting journalism" or whatever sob story media pushers want to cry crocodile tears about. They have killed their own credibility, and every day they behave badly, and _continue to play victim_ , the more people wake up and stop trusting them.

Edit -- the big thing that media companies _hate_ is that now with the internet and social media, people being covered have a voice and can speak up. Media companies absolutely hate this loss of influence, and again will attack anyone or anything that chips away at that from them. But again, they exposed themselves, and have wrecked their own credibility, hence the dying out of the industry.

<comment><USER18> I don't know why you think "media companies" hate anything.

I think that they're just doing whatever makes the most money.

Printing hardly researched often untrue shock-garabage makes a lot of money. It gets traffic from people who agree with it and traffic from people who think it's awful. Even lying outright-- there are no consequences and it's cheap to produce. If anyone cares the controversy just means even more traffic.

No great conspiracy is required. Modern consumption patterns have made essentially tabloid grade 'journalism' more profitable than it was while making traditional modes of journalism less profitable. If the commercial operations weren't producing junk at scale they'd probably be put out of business by grass roots tabloid-content production.

I'm sure there are plenty of journalists who would like to do better, but wishes doesn't put food on the table. They produce what earns money or they find another line of work.

We get what we incentivize.

<comment><USER19> I agree that we get what we incentivize. But there is really nothing new about this at all.

The idea of news outlets presenting unvarnished truth without slant or bias is a fantasy world that never existed. In fact, while the technology has changed, the journalism of today is much more reliable and objective than that of one and two hundred years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Dalio is the creator of the 'All Weather Portfolio', which was popularized in a Tony Robbins book. The portfolio is _very_ heavy on bonds, a controversial idea.

Dalio is often outspoken on lots of financial matters. I'll be watching this issue, he's an interesting figure.

</comment><comment><USER21> May be they deserve a Toohey Award: [https://tooheys.org/](https://tooheys.org/)

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't really understand why we should care about a fund or its managers.

Unlike product companies, funds don't contribute anything meaningful to the world. It's a zero-sum game where someone comes out on top with $19 billion dollars and then goes to Burning Man. That's acceptable but not admirable.

The only difference between Dalio and Madoff is that the former actually has the money. Neither has a legacy.

<comment><USER23> Trite.

He is playing in one of the most difficult and competitive games in the world, has a track record of crushing it, and has produced excellent work to document and share the mindset which helps him do it.

He obviously has a legacy. People like me respect him. You don't like his legacy. That doesn't mean he doesn't have one.</comment></comment>


The fake vc - <AUTHOR> http://www.shaf.co/post/75399291209/the-fake-vc-eccentric-german-millionaire-and-the

<comment><USER3> This brings back very uncomfortable memories. When I was 25 I was helping a friend who was creating the first structural analysis software for the PC. I introduced my friend and his partner to this strange guy in Dearborn, Michigan. There were meetings at the airport and in his office in Dearborn. This guy claimed to be a wizard at arbitrage and arcane financial instruments. He said he worked out all the algorithms for Ford Motor for hedging copper futures. He was overweight, had greasy hair, and, I kid you not, his back pockets were usually turned inside out. We figured, eccentric genius. At least at first. All he ever provided were excuses. He was waiting to flip some sort of bond issue overseas that would give him $10 million, etc. That business never got off the ground.

Then a year later my own partner and I got a call. We had been looking for a manufacturing business to acquire. The crazy guy had a contact in Chicago who was looking for an operations team to come in on a deal to acquire a manufacturer of audio mixing boards. This company was still run by the founder who had practically invented the industry. There were 50 employees and customers included major studios and venues around the world, including the US Senate and the Kremlin. The deal maker, lets call him DB, proposed that each of four partners -the founder, me, my partner, and him- put $25K into a holding company. He would arrange a $250K line of credit from the Korean bank in Chicago that he was friends with. Then we would operate the company out of bankruptcy. Well we three each sent him $25K (my dad lent me the money). We did all the legal paper work, and I showed up the next day as one of the new owners of a $3 million/year company. Very exciting for a 27 yr old. To make the story short. DB was a complete crook. He needed $75K to pay off someone else he had screwed and was threatening his life. The business shut down. 50 people lost their jobs. It took me years to get back on my feet financially.

<comment><USER4> I'm the author of the blog, I'm sorry to hear that. It sounds an order of magnitude worse than my story. Luckily I didn't outlay any money or hand over any important documents. It sounds like you should share your story too - <USER2> wonder if there's a place somewhere people can share startup horror stories?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Valley has been filled with these types since it became known for loose money and fame. I've met perpetual VCs without money, Founders with no real startup other than a logo and domain name, and name-dropping nobodies since they first day I came here.

In general be suspicious of flakiness and an inability to meet any agreed upon timeline, and always validate information in person when possible. Even if they are real and show these attributes, you likely don't want them involved with your business ventures anyways.

</comment><comment><USER6> _None of these questions or tactics will be offensive to real angel investors. In fact, they will give the real ones more confidence in you._

This is a big sticking point for first time founders because it by definition turns the tables and now the founder is the one who is challenging the supposed expert investor.

This can be tough for people to do if they aren't used to it.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is absolutely insane. Why not out Fredo publicly?

<comment><USER8> It's a tough call. The behaviour isn't acceptable, and it's in fact very harmful to others - and he'll continue to do it to others until he can't. When he can't will likely be determined by a) jail time, though I'm not sure any of the behaviour mentioned is actually illegal, or b) that he has no options for work and job offers and no other possibilities because his credibility is shot. Of course from my own experience with people who are like this, they burn their bridges locally - and then just move to a different city where they can be and act however they want again.

<comment><USER9> > my own experience with people who are like this

have you met many of them? i mean, perhaps some people oversell themselves, some might even tell outright lies -- but this guy fabricated entire identities.

i'd like to think that this is not exactly commonplace.

but if it really is, then this kind of thing more common in the tech industry, or does pretty much everything with a "business" angle attract a few people like this?

<comment><USER10> It's very common. This is what many self proclaimed 'business people' are like. In places where aspiring business people congregate (like this site) it will be dressed up with euphemisms about 'social hacking' and 'disruption'. Go to some local startup/entrepreneurial meetups and you will find plenty of people like this. If you are a developer you won't need to be there very long before these types will be offering you all sorts of 'opportunities' and 'partnerships' that mostly just involve you investing your time and money on the promise of getting rich quick, but with very little ever written down. Plenty of kids fresh out of university get burned with these scams.

For an example, here in the UK the chairman of the current ruling party used fake identities to run his dodgy web marketing/scraping/consulting business and most people in the UK startup scene didn't think there was much wrong with what he did. [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/21/grant- shapps...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/21/grant-shapps-posed- web-guru)

>Grant Shapps, the Conservative party chairman, posed as a "multimillion- dollar web marketer" named Michael Green who spoke to reveal the secrets of his trade at a $3,000-a-head internet conference in Las Vegas while he was the Tory party candidate for Welwyn Hatfield.

>The pictorial evidence of his double life, revealed online by a fellow conference speaker, will pile pressure on Shapps to explain his links to a network of websites which have been blocked by Google for breaching its rules on copyright infringement and encouraging customers to plagiarise content.

>But at the age of 35, Shapps claimed already to have established "the world's largest internet marketing forum". A few years later while a member of the shadow cabinet, he also had time to run phone lines where for $297 an hour Green would give tips to aspiring entrepreneurs.

>Casting himself as an internet marketing guru with products and coaching services guaranteed to generate income, Shapps owned and ran until 2008 a series of websites making claims that still dog him despite attempts to downplay his personal role. Using the website MichaelGreenConsulting.com, which operated from 2004 until it was removed from the internet in 2009, Shapps claimed to run the "world's largest internet marketing forum" with his company How To Corp.

<comment><USER8> I don't know about these individuals, though I feel there's a difference between the business "act as if" people and someone who's a sociopath; Perhaps they are the same though, just less extreme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What a fascinating story. Thank you for sharing it.

I totally hear you on fact that it was hard to see at the time, but obvious now. You want to believe, which completely messes with your mind.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for reading it. It was very cathartic writing it, I'm just as confused as I was then but at least I can take lessons from it and share with others.</comment></comment>


XKCD "Workflow" on backwards compatibility - <AUTHOR> https://xkcd.com/1172/

<comment><AUTHOR> This comic makes a very good point about backwards compatibility:

You have to be always clear about how far you're willing to take it.

As far as I know, there aren't yet any standards on this. It is quite simple for libraries, at least if they have an API spec: expect the documented behaviour to stay, and the undocumented behaviour to change. However, for GUI programs it's much harder, unless the manual covers description of the complete visible behaviour. Such manuals might have been existing for software in the past, and may exist for very common and widely used software in the present (such as Emacs or PostgreSQL).

But most modern GUI software lacks this kind of documentation. Oh, and lots of libraries lack a good documentation, too. So what to do about this? You can't really change such software in a backward compatible way, because there is no measure on how much of the current behaviour you have to conserve.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is orthogonal to the point, but something I noticed in the link - <USER2> does something like XKCD need HTTPS? Is it just a "secure by default" thing?</comment>


React-vdom upgraded to React v0.12.0 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gcanti/react-vdom

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello, I wrote this handy little library for testing purposes: you can extract the vdom from a React component and test it against a JSON with simple tools like assert.deepEqual() and without a real DOM. The extracted vdom has the following type definition:

        type Node = {
          tag: string,
          attrs: object<name, value>,
          children: undefined | null | Node | Array<Node>
        }

If your component handle a private state, you can inject a state to test different configurations.

This is an example of massive use in a form generation library:

[https://github.com/gcanti/tcomb- form/blob/master/test/test.j...](https://github.com/gcanti/tcomb- form/blob/master/test/test.js)

Hope it can help you too.</comment>


The MacBook Air: A Decade's Worth of Legacy - <AUTHOR> https://mjtsai.com/blog/2018/01/15/the-macbook-air-a-decades-worth-of-legacy/ <comment><USER3> Argh... I can't talk about the Macbook Air without getting angry. Angry at Apple's direction.

I bought the second generation MBA (the first good one) in 2011. It was a fantastic laptop. It was pretty much the right compromise of power vs weight vs cost. I loved how you could get a pretty darn usable Macbook for (eventually) like $1200.

For the first couple of years other manufacturers just couldn't compete with that much hardware for that price.

But then it got a bit long in the tooth. I, like many, was waiting for a screen upgrade (particularly to a retina screen). Other manufacturers were increasingly producing better hardware and smaller bezel displays. Yet no update from Apple (after about 2015 or so).

And then... the Macbook came out, which spelt the end for the MBA (a 12" MB and 11/13" MBAs were too many SKUs for Apple). And the MB was a terrible compromise. One port (also for power!). Terrible keyboard. Horrible performance.

And now we have Macbook Pros that have:

\- Removed the super-useful Magsafe connector

\- Added a stupid touchbar no one cares about

\- Used a much worse keyboard and trackpad to save like 0.5mm in width; and

\- Cost 2x+ as much.

Thanks for that, Apple.

All I wanted was an updated Macbook Air.

<comment><USER4> >\- Removed the super-useful Magsafe connector

>\- Added a stupid touchbar no one cares about

>\- Used a much worse keyboard and trackpad to save like 0.5mm in width;

I have 2 of the new Touch Bar MBPs (one for work and one for personal) and those 3 things are something that sold me on the computer _after_ I had purchased it. I had no intention of using the TouchBar and felt like they didn't need to mess with the MagSafe or the keyboard and yet all 3 of these things have won me over.

The TouchBar is _amazing_ to me and something that I use regularly (made even better by BetterTouchTool). Being able to scrub through media while still having hands on the keyboard and then switching immediately to editing tools is a godsend for me.

The USB-C connector is a much better option, in my opinion, than MagSafe was (even though I really liked MagSafe) simply because it's not a proprietary connector and it's not limited to charging. I'll happily give up a dedicated port for charging when I don't have to buy chargers from Apple and the port doubles as an I/O port. In hindsight, MagSafe was convenient when laptops weighed and ton and could easily get pulled down by the standard laptop charger plug. I've had all different laptops for years now and can count on one hand the number of times MagSafe would have saved me a slight bit of trouble.

As for the trackpad and keyboard, I much prefer the feel of the new keyboard and I can't tell a difference between the trackpads simply because I prefer the larger trackpad. The "click" feels exactly the same in day-to-day use. The keyboard feels much more stable and even to me and I don't find the travel to be greater to one side of a key or another so it always feels like a solid press.

Maybe it's just me but I love the new Macbook Pros. I'd love to see an updated MBA with a Retina display instead of the 12" Macbook but I have no complaints about the Pro line at all and I'm a professional media creator and developer.

<comment><USER5> > _In hindsight, MagSafe was convenient when laptops weighed and ton and could > easily get pulled down by the standard laptop charger plug._

Didn't you get that inversely? It's today's lighter laptops that can MORE easily get pulled down by the standard laptop charger plug.

Absent a magsafe style solution, the easiness of which a laptop can be pulled down is an inverse factor of its weight.

> _I 've had all different laptops for years now and can count on one hand the > number of times MagSafe would have saved me a slight bit of trouble._

That's still up to 5 times. And that's with YOUR use cases, others (e.g. less mindful, with pets, with kids, working on cafes, etc) can have it even much worse.

But even 1 time, never mind "measurable on one hand" times, of avoiding getting a laptop dented, with broken screen, etc, in a decade is a good ROI.

<comment><USER4> >Didn't you get that inversely? It's today's lighter laptops that can MORE easily get pulled down by the standard laptop charger plug.

No, but I probably should have been clearer in my meaning. The chargers now plug in via a very tiny port that is easily removed with minimal force. The larger, heavier laptops of the past had the more standard wall-wort plugs that needed to be pulled straight back to remove them. USB-C unplugs too easily to ever be a risk for a computer getting pulled down and computers are too light now to actually disengage the MagSafe ports. It's a tough balance where too powerful of a magnet won't disengage a light computer and too light of a magnet causes the charger to fall off at the lightest touch.

As for your second point/question, I was mainly saying that paying a premium for a MagSafe connector is less worth it to me than having a non-proprietary port that is also multi-function since it's very uncommon for the use-case that MagSafe was designed for to happen nowadays with computers. I have yet to hear a current story where MagSafe saved someone's computer or where the USB-C cable trashed someone's computer by getting pulled and not releasing. MagSafe was awesome for its time but I think it's not as useful with today's tech.

<comment><USER6> Where to begin?

Okay, so USB-C has a long pull. It's not a short simple disengage that can occur at any angle. You can't snap off a USB-C plug by rolling at an angle, without inflicting wear at best, or connector damage at worst.

The lighter the laptop, the more likely the laptop will be pulled by the binding of the tension clip, especially if the angle of pull is unintentionally wrong and accidental.

That the laptop is lighter is good, because on a bad drop off a table top, there's less impact damage or probability of screen breakage, but a trip over a cord or an excited pet can still send the laptop flying MORE EASILY, not less.

The heavier chasis weight merely means that damage was more readily inflicted on the conductive ring-and-pin DC port itself, or the adapter wire, by serving to anchor the chasis in place, than would a lighter chasis get launched across the room.

The lighter chasis means a lesser magnet should be used to link the magsafe connector to the power port, but either way, magsafe wins. It's the better design every time.

Back in the day, the magsafe connector saved multiple fragile components, preventing HDD head crashes, dents, bent plugs, sceen smashes and frayed power cord internals. But now, with SSD drives and gorilla glass monitors, and commodity cords, laptops are more durable and survivable on a drop than years ago.

Either way, it's still extremely disconcerting to drop a laptop, no matter that they can withstand more abuse than the bad old days, and magsafe power connects were a reassuring presence.

Fortunately, it's low technology, and USB-C is an open standard, so after market solutions could jump into the market for a save. It doesn't have to be an Apple product exclusive anymore. It could be an Otter Box durability sweetener included with their hardened clamshell wrappers, or a Belkin accessory, or whatever dongle-du-jour company puts something out. It's just that no one has pushed into that area yet.

<comment><USER7> The Griffin BreakSafe cable, among others, push into that area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sony's VAIO X505 had some impressive specs when it first debuted in 2004. It was just 0.38 inches at its thinnest point, and used Intel's ultra-low voltage Pentium processor. It was the first laptop to feature a "chiclet" keyboard, named for its small rounded keys that resemble Chiclets gum. All of this was packaged into a $3,000 notebook years before Apple unveiled its MacBook Air.

[https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/6/5385716/sony-vaio- iconic-p...](https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/6/5385716/sony-vaio-iconic-pcs- photo-essay#photo-5149539-10)

<comment><USER9> That laptop certainly looks revolutionary. But while we're on the subject of Sony ultra-portables: I am a little sad that there's been no update to the Sony VAIO P-Series of laptops which are literally pocket sized.

I had one, and aside from the screen refresh it was so crazy how absurdly portable it was.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Vaio_P_series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Vaio_P_series)

<comment><USER10> Boy, i loved those! I remember browsing lots of japanese and hongkong sites to find one with EU-shipping. Does anyone know similar current devices?

<comment><USER11> There's a couple recent products that hit similar niches:

GPD Pocket: [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-pocket-7-0-umpc- lapto...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-pocket-7-0-umpc-laptop- ubuntu-or-win-10-os-laptop--2)

GPD Win 2: [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-win-2-handheld- game-c...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-win-2-handheld-game-console- for-aaa-games-laptop)

Ockel Sirius A: [https://www.ockelcomputers.com/sirius-a/](https://www.ockelcomputers.com/sirius-a/)

I have the original GPD Win, and it's a surprisingly competent PC for being roughly the size of a Nintendo 3DS XL. The keyboard is terrible for typing on, but that's kind of expected with its gaming focus.

<comment><USER12> I got a pocket... the keyboard lets it down a bit, I hanker after the Psion 5 keyboard.

Unfortunately the team trying to bring back something like the Psion are the same people who are not bringing the Spectrum Vega to its backers, but instead seem to be spending the backers money on frivolous lawsuits.

<comment><USER13> I have a GPD Pocket too, and I concur with you - the keyboard is one iteration away from being acceptable. But, is it not still a kick-ass machine? I really love mine, and I look forward to any revision we may see from GPD in the future - and/or competition along similar lines. Finally a decent unibody not of Apple heritage!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Probably the favorite of any laptop I have ever owned. Lightning fast with the SSD (compared to the 250/320GB spinner in the 13" Pro at the time), very sleek, great touchpad/screen/keyboard...

And then 11" was a new level of portability. The 2013 model brought battery upgrades that were so far ahead of the rest of the thin and lights.

Perhaps the best part: the low price of $1099 made the 13" Air a bargain. Cheaper than the _worse_ 13" Pro! And the 11" model was another $100 less. Combine that with discounts from retailers like B&H, Best Buy, or MicroCenter and you could get a brand new Mac for $799 at various times. Very unlike Apple.

<comment><USER15> And great battery life, for such a light machine.

I liked it much more than my current 2016 MacBook "Pro".

<comment><USER16> I agree about the battery life but the non-touch bar MBP is a gem. It's as light as a MacBook Air and I've bounced it around a few times accidentally (no damage, unlike my Air). The new screen and touch pad are great too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For me my next purchase would probably still be a Macbook Air. Right now, I'm using an Air it I love it. The comfortable enough to work and use anywhere. But I wont be buying any time soon. The one I'm using now is about 3 years old. It's still reliable and haven't noticed a single problem with it. This comparing to my brother's 2 year old MBP riddled with LCD problems.

I've had MBPs before and it seems they tend to break easier. They are a bit hot and heavy.

<comment><USER18> Also I can't help but continue to notice the reliability complaints people have about new MBP keyboards. I love my Macbook Air keyboard.

I'm still doing fine with my 2012 MBA. The battery was shot, so I replaced it. I'd love to see Apple continue making them...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This week I had the battery replaced in my mid 2013 Air. First time I've had a computer for anything like this long and not wanted to bin it. A bigger SSD and more RAM would be nice but it remains my ideal laptop. They were definitely on to something.

<comment><USER20> The SSDs in the Air are replaceable, but new units are insanely expensive. I've been looking to swap out my 128GB SSD with a 256GB unit (Mid-2013 MBA). An OEM 256GB SSD is around $450, the OWC Aura (seemingly the only compatible third party unit) is $250 -- better, but still hard to justify. There are used units on eBay, but I don't like using second hand hard drives.

Are there any other options out there?

<comment><USER21> There are but there are some heavy caveats and they don't really work all that well. For example, I recently purchased one of these Sintech adapters[0] and a Samsung 960 Evo. NVMe drives are technically supported in the latest High Sierra, but clearly there are huge issues with the NVMe SSD drivers and OS X still. While I appreciated the higher speeds and capacity at a better price, ultimately having OSX hard reboot due to kernel panics two or three times a day made me give up on this experiment. I'll probably try it again sometime in the future though.

0\. [http://eshop.sintech.cn/storage-adapter-2013-mac-pcie- ssd-c-...](http://eshop.sintech.cn/storage-adapter-2013-mac-pcie- ssd-c-130_132.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I took the plunge with the second gen MacBook Air after seeing fellow devs at WWDC haul them around as if they were nothing. I initially noticed the slower HDD and performance hit, but didn't miss it after the first week. The mobility was a huge boon. I was working for myself and often meeting clients or working from the coffee shop, bar, etc. I held on to it until the MacBook caught up in size/weight.

Source: me. I write iOS apps.

<comment><USER23> Interesting…the original MacBook Air I know was pretty slow and underpowered. How did it feel developing on it?

<comment><USER22> I was upgrading from a medium spec second gen Intel MacBook Pro so the performance hit wasn't as drastic for me. Development was fine honestly. The Air was my primary development machine for the next 4 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The killer feature for me of the 2nd-gen Airs was the battery life. It's the first time I'd been able to go all day without plugging in (for light management-type work).

All day was a step change. I was sad when my new 13in MBP needs plugged in at lunchtime. The screen and other specs are much better of course but I'd become used to leaving my PSU in the office all day while zipping around.

<comment><USER15> Absolutely true. The 2016 MBP sure has a nice screen and all, but basically half the battery life for twice the price.

<comment><USER25> The MBP isn't the successor to the air though - that'd be the Macbook which I think has similar battery life and a nicer screen.

I'm not sure why Apple still makes the air since the Macbook seems like the obvious replacement.

<comment><USER26> From a design point of view maybe, but the price of the MacBook is far too much for what you get.

The 2011 MacBook Air was a good replacement for the discontinued white MacBook. It was a lot more modern, but retained the same price point. It still continued to fulfil the role of the entry level Mac.

The current MacBook doesn't do that though. It's too expensive to be entry level - similar spec'ed to a MacBook Air, it is $300 more, for some new colours and a slightly better screen? Ok it's a little more portable, but it's not like the MacBook Air is bulky... The base model having an underpowered processor definitely isn't helping it's reputation - it's like the original MacBook Air all over again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am writing this on a 2011 macbook air -it's my battered lightweight notebook computer and still my main device. My next laptop will be a chromebook. I only really continue to use the mac for a small handful of mac specific hard drive run software programmes such as Adobe Creative Suite 4 (the last disk based version).

I replaced the battery last year and am unimpressed by newer Mac products.

Apple have completely lost me as a customer after years of my buying their hardware. I use an Android phone and consider Google to be the new Apple at this point in history.

<comment><USER28> I am writing this on a handed down 2003 PowerBook G4 12" — it's my battered lightweight notebook computer and still my main device except for when I am being paid. I am not sure what my next laptop will be. I am looking at overpowered fan-less mini PCs, but have decided to wait for breakthrough CPUs, maybe massively parallel open cores — I could be waiting a while.

I use the PowerBook mostly to type, code, and debug. The code most often runs on other hardware, although from time to time I have compiled the latest modern versions of software I use for the PowerBook.

I keep it plugged in as much as I can and have yet to replace the battery. I am also unimpressed by newer Mac products as the iPhone appears to be their focus.

Apple never really had me as a customer after decades of my using their hardware. I sometimes use an old Android phone without data and consider Google to be the new Microsoft at this point in history.

<comment><USER29> What are you running on your PowerBook? Linux? MacOS with Firefox? If it's the latter, do you still get browser updates? Do you never have the urge to watch web videos at native resolution, or do you use it precisely because those kinda distractions are not available?

I'm asking because I still got a 2005 G4 12'' somewhere, and I'm wondering whether I should do anything with it.

<comment><USER27> I'm on a gigabit connection which helps my old Air chug along, but I can't watch 1080 video without herky jerky interruptions and fan huffing and puffing. That's a drawback...

I have managed to cut MSFT out of my life for the most part but in many ways I agree that Google are now their equivalent...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's always interesting how people in the Apple bubble just ignore what the 90% of computers that are not Macs are doing. It's like when people talk about the IPhone as completely new but ignore Blackberry and Nokia Communicators. Sure, they were not nearly as good, but they were there.

The Air was Apple's reaction to netbooks which were appearing at the time. I remember seeing an Air for the first time, which instead of an AUD 300 netbook was AUD 1200 or something. But it still looked super neat. The early machines with Celerons or something had pretty dismal performance at high price. But when the i5 machines came out with SSDs they were and are sweet.

This is being typed on a MBA from 2013. The battery life is still very good and the performance is fine for most things I do with it.

However, if I bought a similar machine now it probably wouldn't be a Mac because well, Apple just don't care about much or perhaps most of the range now and the Windows machines have got better and better. Surfaces are where people most excited.

I still have a netbook too. When you're travelling and don't want to take a machine a $AUD 250 netbook is remarkable. A 'real' computer that I do a few things on that is cheap enough to be almost disposable.

<comment><USER31> Yes. If you want to see the legacy of the Macbook Air, you probably need to start with Netbooks and end with something like the latest LG Gram or Acer Swift 7 from CES 2018.

Apple participated in the space, and put in a great effort, but the story neither starts nor ends with Apple's products.

<comment><USER30> Definitely.

Oh, there was also the failed 'Ultrabook' thing from Intel that was Intel's attempt to certify effectively Air clones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I just bought another Air after returning a 2016 "Pro". I've been using my 2015 Pro for the last 3 years, and worried about it breaking down so wanted a spare. I've had 2 of them before and they are the best machines I've ever owned.

If Apple released a MBA with retina display and 16gb of ram with the same battery life, I've pay at least 2x the current price for it.

<comment><USER16> The new Pros are effectively Airs in weight but not in battery. What about the 12inch MacBooks? Aren't they effectively Airs minus the ports (a dongle could solve that problem).

<comment><USER33> In my experience the 12inch Macbook is not an Air replacement. The CPU is super-slow, and the keyboard is very poor (maybe I just got a bad one I don't know... but I find it almost useless).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > The base model shipped with a 4,200-RPM hard drive straight out of an > iPod...A 64 GB SSD option was available for a whopping $999.

$1k is not expensive for a high-quality Ultrabook...In fact, I'm pretty sure the Macbook Air is still around that price. Have laptops really gone up in price since 2008?

...oh wait. A little research [1] suggests that the optional SSD _added_ $1k to the price, bringing the total to $3100. That is and was expensive.

[1]: [https://gizmodo.com/345101/adding-a-64gb-ssd-to-the- macbook-...](https://gizmodo.com/345101/adding-a-64gb-ssd-to-the-macbook- air-1300-extra-please)

<comment><USER35> The originals were, IMO, something for upper management to show off with. It could be argued that the machines could be used for productive work, but it was ungodly high price to pay for such an underpowered machine. For half the price and a pound more in weight, a lot of machines would mop the floor with the Air.

That's not to say that cramming it into a case that size wasn't impressive, and it was a rough preview of the nice Airs Apple would later build. Just two years later an Air was my main dev machine.

<comment><USER15> I'm wondering whether we will see the same evolution with the current thin MacBook line - from underpowered "concept" to main working machine.

<comment><USER36> Almost certainly that's the plan ... unless they can get you to switch to an iPad Pro instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Unfortunately it's neglected by Apple now. The 2015 MacBook is nice, but it has a quarter less battery life and two thirds less CPU TDP. Yet the MacBook Air's design hasn't changed in years and features a screen that is not very impressive now. (I don't care about Retina, but contrast and viewing angles matter — somehow it gives me eyestrain if used for long periods.) It also has stopped getting thinner and lighter, though in fairness maybe they've pushed it as far as they can without sacrificing performance.

Maybe they'll revive it with Ryzen Mobile, or stuff that into the MacBook. I can dream. For now I want a new laptop but have nothing to buy because, relative to my current 2013 13″ MacBook Air, the new MBAs are virtually identical, the MacBook Pro is too heavy, and the new MacBook is at best a sidegrade (the screen, Rose Gold finish and greater compactness are nice but the performance would be the same or worse).

</comment><comment><USER38> It's still a very compelling option as a second computer that you'd want to take around with you. I bought one few months back and its powerful enough for common development tasks. Considering that Macbook Pro RAM has been capped at 16GB for some time now it makes sense to buy a powerful PC for running stuff plus a Macbook Air for portability.

<comment><USER39> The only thing holding me back from buying one is the low quality/resolution screen.

How has that affected your work? Any thoughts to share?

<comment><USER40> If you want a portable Mac but with a better screen, have you considered the 12" MacBook? It's thinner and lighter than the Air and has a Retina screen.

<comment><USER38> IMO the 12 inch MacBook is a weird proposition since it neither has the power of mbp nor the battery backup of mba. From the anecdotal reviews I read in various forums it's performace is somewhat lower than the mba but I'm not sure if that's true.

<comment><USER40> I downsized from a maxed out 2015 15" MacBook Pro to a maxed out 2016 12" MacBook. I've owned an 11" MacBook Air in the past as well (~2012).

I thought there would be a large step down in power, but it's not really noticeable for my workloads (native mobile and full stack web development with Docker, some graphic design with Sketch, etc.). The only time I've ever really felt it made a significant difference is when I have 100+ tabs open in my browser (bad habit). You can get 16GB with the 2017 12" MacBook though, so if you're buying new, that's not a problem.

The battery life between the 12" MacBook and the Air is roughly the same, from memory. Maybe newer Air models are better, but both are good.

I'm not really sure what makes it a weird proposition. The MacBook having less power than the heavier, more expensive MacBook Pro is to be expected, isn't it? And the Air is just the cheapest model they keep around for the students. The 12" MacBook is for the average person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The problem with original wasn't only hard drive, but overheating CPU. The heatsink was basically a thin piece of metal, not exactly a heatsink.

Watching any flash video was impossible for more than few minutes.

Skype calls were impossible for more than a few minutes.

HD video was impossible for more than a few minutes.

<comment><USER42> This is so true. I remember that I had to pause video playback after about 30 minutes or you would experience jitter. The next generation did not suffer from this problem, but I'm still kinda disappointed in Apple for selling such a bad product. A $1000+ laptop that cannot play 30 minutes of HD video is just sad, even in 2009.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> By far my favourite computer ever. I recommend it to everyone that asks me which computer to buy.

The battery life is what makes it. The first time I could leave the house without a charger and not be worried.

Interactive performance feels the same as my MBP. Development is fine, from JS to Common Lisp.

Great systems. I'll keep buying the as long as Apple keeps making them.

</comment><comment><USER44> The sad thing is how the Air design has infected all their other laptops including the awful non-pro 2016+ Macbook Pros

<comment><USER15> Funny thing is that the Air had better battery life than the 2016 "Pro"...

<comment><USER45> That's not at all surprising. There's a reason it kept the low-res screen for so long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I switched to Mac with the Mid-2012 i7 Air. Cost me just under A$2000 after updating all the internals

It is still my home computer and have not noticed it slowing down!

I'm glad I chose this over the newly released 13" pro retina. The low DPI screen means this thing flies!

I can't see any reason I would to upgrade in the next year or two - <USER2> from a new battery, and my power adaptor just started fraying.

A new Air wouldn't be significantly more powerful & would cost more than my original (Australian dollar doesn't convert as well now).

Although, having just got into audio production, I think I'm almost at the performance ceiling. CPU fan gets quite loud while using Logic with 15+ tracks & effects, but it still runs great.

I need to replace the battery - I think this will make it like an new computer.

<comment><USER47> Try Reaper. Much more efficient processor-wise than Logic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've managed to avoid the Air cult, mostly because I need extra beef, and Air never seemed to have it.

But I sure am glad there are machines like the GPD Pocket around. I'm not entirely convinced the two, at each ends of various spectra as well as legacy, are inter-linked, however.

Which is to say the Air "was inevitable", its just that Apple did it 'best'.

Its taken a fair bit for other vendors of electronic junk to catch up with the Air factor, though, but I do wonder about what the future may hold for the GPD Pocket 2. It has the potential as a 'just as good Air experience', only .. you know .. fully open.

<comment><USER48> Also have a look at the Gemini PDA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> It'd be awesome if Apple made an anniversary Macbook Air with upgraded internals, like Lenovo did recently. Would buy one in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER50> They have, it is called the macbook. Smaller, lighter than the air, retina screen, great battery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> After All these discussions and comment over and over again, it is clear the problem is simply: Pricing / Product Position, and Trade Offs.

Most wanted a updated MBA, which many has pointed out that is basically MBP. And that is right, the MBP is what we wanted except the pricing. The same goes to Macbook, it doesn't replace MBA. Then there is the issues with trade off on Keyboard, thinness, and single port with Macbook

I.e Keyboard Issues and Port aside, people have problems with its value proposition against the MBA. It is either MB Pro is too expensive, or the MB Air offers too much value.

It was also noted that the discontinued MB Air 11" was the best selling Laptop at its time, simply because it was the cheapest .

There are also lots of consumers buying the Macbook Pro simply because the current Macbook is inadequate for them. Be it size or power.

Really, the MBA is Mac Mini, used to be the most valuable in the lineup, but is now neglected.

</comment><comment><USER52> I got a 2017 13in Touchbar Pro after getting the top spec 13in MBA in 2013.

The battery was worse, it was heavier, same speed, keys constantly got stuff stuck under them. Only benefit was bright screen and better resolution. Returned it immediately.

I eventually got the new top spec MacBook, and its the spiritual successor to the air. I can't recommend it enough.

<comment><USER53> Doesn't it have the same butterfly keyboard as the new Macbook Pro?

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The huge flaw with the 13" MBA was that although thinner and lighter, it had a bigger footprint than the 13" MPB. Particularly crucial with confined deskspace such as coffee shop, flying, on a train. Add in lack of RAM and retina and it was never compelling for me much as I adore thin and light (and happy with new 12" MBP for it's further reduced footprint, although the RAM situation is maddening).

</comment><comment><USER55> I have the mid 2012 model, it's okay. Definitely was never usable for me as a primary computer with 4GB of RAM. It was just something light that I can bring on the road. I find a Chromebook is better for this use case now. The keyboard is good, I will give the MBA that. But open Gmail in Chrome (with no other tabs or apps opened) and the MBA starts tapping out like that is some kind of big ask.

</comment><comment><USER56> I still use my air from 2011 and love it. Its slow-ish performance also keeps my code in check :)

</comment><comment><USER57> My MacBook Pro died just after the Air came out, so I went with that. Used it as my primary machine until 2016 when I got a proper desktop. But I still carry it with me everywhere. The battery only lasts two hours now, but it's enough.

</comment><comment><USER58> Every time I pick up my new 13" MBP some tiny part of me notes that it just feels so much _bigger_ than the 13" Air it replaced. I hope Apple brings it back by the time this one is ready for replacement.

</comment><comment><USER59> It's showing its age now. My partner's work Air is so much bigger and heavier than my xps 13, it seems obscene that so many Airs are still sold as standard issue at many workplaces.

</comment><comment><USER60> Let's not forget the Air kept a non-IPS screen for ten years, too.

</comment><comment><USER61> My air is my main development machine. I've got the mid 2013, the only think I'd need to be happy using this for more years to come is more ram.

</comment><comment><USER62> I count on performance in my Macs, and for the price, the Air never delivered.

If my use case was browsing, emails and word processing, great. But I'm a professional audio producer and film editor. No dice.

<comment><USER57> That's like saying you passed on a Fiat because you need something to move furniture.

Right tool for the job. The Air was never intended for your job.</comment></comment>


A working video player built in Factario - <AUTHOR> https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=37490 <comment><USER2> (small typo in title: Fact o rio)

Is this using a mod, or are those newer vanilla elements? Even earlier versions had lots of ways to do crazy logic if you wanted, but this seems a lot more streamlined and featureful)</comment>